Turning your hand into a bluff preflop is ok, but seeing as you are getting a great price to call and flop a set this would be my preferred line. Especially since there is a short guy to act behind you: it should influence your preflop decision.

I agree that you probably have the required equity in this spot to call, I would call.

This post has been edited 2 time(s), it was last edited by w34z3l: 20.01.2013 11:42.

Originally posted by Th334
Re short guys: so we kinda don't want to raise them, or with them being behind, because it'll be a shove each time they like their hand, which we might be not comfortable to call?

Yeah, just check who is left to act behind you before launching any pre-flop bluffs. If there are shortstackers they can put you in uncomfortable spots.

Aside from the fact that bluffing is unecessary, it's not so bad in this spot because villain is short enough we can call a shove, but our call will be close to break even. The thing about break even calls is that they don't increase our winrate but they do increase our variance.

I was thinking that calling for set-mining gets unprofitable if we are against a loose range and OOP. So I often bluff w/ them, when I can't call. Like here, but here actually we should call because of the odds.

Recently I was told that good players can still call small PPs, esp. from BB, and play them profitable postflop. Instead, they bluff with some suited Qx, Jx.

What would you recommend? I guess if we call, we plan to float and bluff-raise suitable boards against suitable opponents when we miss, to show some profit.

This post has been edited 3 time(s), it was last edited by w34z3l: 21.01.2013 10:13.

Hey Th334,

In order for a set-mine to be profitable we need good implied odds. Several things contribute to having good implied odds -

- Deeper stacks
- Opponent is very tight
- Opponent is very bluffy
- Opponent is a calling station
- We have position

(Notice that it doesn't matter that our opponent has a loose range if he is the type to bluff off or call-down multiple streets).

The general rule with 3bet bluffing is that you need to do it with hands that are not good enough to call with. If you have a profitable set-mine you probably should not be bluffing.

The main situation I choose to bluff is OOP vs a CO/BU open with 22-66, vs a player with a high Ft3bet who looks like he might be good enough that he won't pay me off often enough postflop if I were to set-mine. Folding is also an option, especially vs the shorter stacks who may reship, or don't look like they will fold very often vs 3bet. It's not actually necessary to have 22-66 in your 3betting range at all, some players don't.

This post has been edited 4 time(s), it was last edited by Th334: 21.01.2013 13:25.

Wow! That's so awesome! I never though about the bluffy and fishy parts. Great ideas, especially for uNL, thanks so much!

Just quickly, am I right thinking that even OOP against guys that are not tight/fishy/bluffy/deep we can often call with ~88 for the overpair (second pair) value? In this spot it's more like a domination thing than set-mining -- we will dominate most of his pockets.

Finally, you said that many people don't include PPs in their bluff ranges? Is it because their postflop skill allows them to call PPs profitably every time, or PPs are just bad for bluffing? F.e., I decided that I can't call this guy in this situation, even with a PP, but I can bluff. Should I rather try to bluff him when I have a PP, or other speculative hands are better?

What I think about it:
- 4. PPs might be better for a bluff than Kxs, Qxs, Jxs with low kicker, because we don't flop dominated TP, that might cost us a lot.
- 3. Suited broadways are a bit better, probably as good as PPs. Although still dominated often, but they draw to really big hands.
- 2. Somewhere here are suited connectors. I prefer them because they aren't dominated. Something like 98s is better than 33 though.
- 1. Suited aces are awesome, especially against weaker players who can't fold a flush. A2s can win KK, it's also a blocker for a light 3-bet, so I would rather play them than small PPs, if I cannot call.

As you can see, I would muck a weak suited J, but bluff with 33, if I can't call. Do I estimate the value of pocket pairs correctly, or Jxs is actually better than 33?

Originally posted by Th334
am I right thinking that even OOP against guys that are not tight/fishy/bluffy/deep we can often call with ~88 for the overpair (second pair) value? In this spot it's more like a domination thing than set-mining -- we will dominate most of his pockets.

Yup 88 is a little weak to 3bet, but a little strong to turn into a bluff. You won't be purely set-mining with your 88 because on some flops you can peel a card OOP, especially if your opponent is cbetting wide.

Originally posted by Th334
Finally, you said that many people don't include PPs in their bluff ranges? Is it because their postflop skill allows them to call PPs profitably every time, or PPs are just bad for bluffing?

It's really to do with postflop and the fact that you won't have many good barrelling opportunities after you cbet. With suited-gappers you can turn flush-draws and 2pair which allow you to profitably bet turn. Tyically at uNL I usually advise players to give up with their 3bet bluffs unless they flop 2-pair or better (at least to begin with), so it's not really too relevant whether there are good opportunities to 2-barrel.

Originally posted by Th334
F.e., I decided that I can't call this guy in this situation, even with a PP, but I can bluff. Should I rather try to bluff him when I have a PP, or other speculative hands are better?

In most situations small pockets will be ever so slightly better in equity than Axs vs a reasonable value range. They are both clear favourites over Kxs and SC's.

Originally posted by Th334
- 4. PPs might be better for a bluff than Kxs, Qxs, Jxs with low kicker, because we don't flop dominated TP, that might cost us a lot.

Definitely true that you can run into trouble with stuff like Q9s. This is usually why I tell players not to start value-betting without 2pair or better when they were 3betting pf as a bluff. If you 3bet Q9s pf and the flop comes Q72r, you don't automatically have a value hand.

Originally posted by Th334
- 3. Suited broadways are a bit better, probably as good as PPs. Although still dominated often, but they draw to really big hands.
- 2. Somewhere here are suited connectors. I prefer them because they aren't dominated. Something like 98s is better than 33 though.
- 1. Suited aces are awesome, especially against weaker players who can't fold a flush. A2s can win KK, it's also a blocker for a light 3-bet, so I would rather play them than small PPs, if I cannot call.

Stuff like 98s is going to have better playability postflop. What this means is that you can make strong draws and sometimes move your opponent off his hand without ever needing to actually get there.

In terms of raw equity, small pairs will actually be the best, they just suck in the playability department, because so often the flop will come 3 overcards and you end up folding.

Originally posted by Th334
As you can see, I would muck a weak suited J, but bluff with 33, if I can't call. Do I estimate the value of pocket pairs correctly, or Jxs is actually better than 33?

You should take into account stack-size of opponent. Raw equity hands like low pairs will work well vs shorter stacks because you can call off more often vs a shove. Vs deeper stacks you prefer the playability of suited connectors. Axs is probably the best all rounder because it has a ton of raw-equity and postflop playability.

This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by Th334: 23.01.2013 05:01.

Thanks again. I already took more notes from this thread than I usually take from an article, a video or a book chapter

w34z3l, we agree that Axs are awesome, but against a 100bb stack, are there any guidelines to choose between a 3B bluff with a small PP or a SC? When would we want to have more raw equity, and when better playability? Does it actually matter?

I think it might have something to do with his ft3b stat, like:
- we can reship PP vs an aggro 4better (in theory, not at 5nl)
- if he calls a ton, a small PP might win the hand when it is checked down
- if he calls only nutty hands, I'd prefer SC over PP, just because against this range our low PP is not even a bluff-catcher, and SC flop something playable 27% of the time, while PP only 12%.

This post has been edited 2 time(s), it was last edited by w34z3l: 27.01.2013 11:01.

Hey th334,

Sorry for the late reply, this thread got lost in note history. Feel free to give them a bump from time to time.

Originally posted by Th334
are there any guidelines to choose between a 3B bluff with a small PP or a SC? When would we want to have more raw equity, and when better playability? Does it actually matter?

Put simply, the deeper the stacks, the more you care about playability over raw-equity. In aggressive games you will be able to cbet/barrel more often and with more equity in situations after you 3bet-bluff.

However it only actually matters if you plan to play aggressively postflop after you 3bet bluff. In micro-stakes games it's fine to just shutdown when your 3bet-bluff fails and you don't flop a strong made hand. In which case there is not much difference between PPs/SCs, you are just doing it for your fold-equity pf.

Originally posted by Th334I think it might have something to do
- we can reship PP vs an aggro 4better (in theory, not at 5nl)

Yup, in fact if you have enough fold-equity you could even 5bet suited connectors. You hardly ever see it happen though. Because players in these higher stakes games realise that what matters in an all-in situation is purely raw-equity. So they will pick Axs or small PP's.

Originally posted by Th334
- if he calls a ton, a small PP might win the hand when it is checked down

Yes, assuming hand is checked down PP's will win more often than SC's because they have more equity. In a lot of cases pot may not get checked down, and a suited-connector will be more valueable in this spot.

Originally posted by Th334
- if he calls only nutty hands, I'd prefer SC over PP, just because against this range our low PP is not even a bluff-catcher, and SC flop something playable 27% of the time, while PP only 12%.

Again, it depends on stack-sizes. If opponent has a shallow stack you'd want PP's vs his value range, because you have more-equity. Vs a deep stack you'd want the SC's because they have better playability etc.

Also it's not always a case of what hand you choose but what hands you get dealt. You might go through a stretch where you get way more PP's than you should. So naturally you might use a few more of these to 3bet bluff with in those instances.